State v. Neeley, 2013 Ohio 303

Neeley and Spradlin previously had a long-term relationship that ended July 2011.
On December 4, 2011 Neeley rammed Spradlin's parked car, leading to a criminal damaging plea on January 12, 2012.
After the incident, Neeley began stalking Spradlin, following her to work at Meijer in Dayton at about 5 a.m. on multiple December 2011 occasions.
Spradlin observed Neeley driving by her residence several times during December 4 and 11, 2011.
On January 24, 2012 Neeley was charged with one count of menacing by stalking; trial occurred May 3, 2012, resulting in conviction.
Sentencing included 180 days in jail, a $1,000 fine with $750 suspended, five years of unsupervised probation, and an order to stay away from Spradlin.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence of a pattern of conduct	Neeley argues no pattern of conduct existed	Neeley contends the evidence failed to show pattern	Conviction supported by sufficient pattern evidence
Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Neeley contends the weight weighs against conviction	Neeley argues credibility and weight favor reversal	Not against the manifest weight; credibility for the court favored Spradlin's testimony

State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (2005-Ohio-6046) (distinguishes sufficiency and weight standards)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility and witness weighing are trial-fact matters)
Perry v. Joseph, 2008-Ohio-1107 (10th Dist.) (mental distress need not be incapacitating; expert testimony not required)
State v. Honeycutt, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19004 (2002-Ohio-3490) (pattern conduct may be proven without explicit threats)